Dem
51
GOP
49
Today's posting is a little on the short side. While (Z) was out to dinner last night, certain staff dachshunds managed to lay paws on 2 weeks' worth of dog treats. How 1-foot-tall dogs got a bag that was on a 4-foot-tall shelf is not clear. In any event, it was necessary to take an inordinate number of potty walks while writing this post.
And as to this week's headline theme, we already told you that if you look closely you're a shoo-in to get it. We'll add that if you don't get it, you'll kick yourself.
E.D. in Saddle Brook, NJ, asks: One of the main defenses being used to try to keep Donald Trump on the ballot is the claim that the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to the president, but only to other positions. I am aware that "what did the authors intend?" often doesn't have a good answer when discussing vague parts of the Constitution. However, the Fourteenth Amendment was written in response to a specific event, so the intentions should be much more clear. I find it very hard to believe that the authors would feel the need to amend the Constitution to prevent Senator Jefferson Davis, but would be ok with President Jefferson Davis. Is there any reason to believe that their intention was to allow insurrectionists to become President?
(V) & (Z) answer: There were early drafts of the Fourteenth Amendment that made clear it was applicable to presidents and VPs, in addition to other officeholders. Why did the Congress eventually strip that out? It probably wasn't to allow insurrectionists to become president. It was almost certainly because they realized that the president and vice-president were the only cases where citizens of one state could use the Fourteenth to impose themselves on the preferences of citizens from another state.
In other words, if Georgia officials decide to disqualify a would-be Georgia senator, then only Georgia is affected. Or if Georgia allows a candidate who is not eligible onto the ballot, and that person is disqualified, only Georgia pays the price for that. On the other hand, if we're talking about the president or VP, then a red state could try to disqualify a candidate favored by the blue states, or a blue state could try to disqualify a candidate favored by the red states. Keeping in mind that Southern abuses of the Constitution were fresh in the memory in the 1860s, it was not unreasonable to be concerned that the Southern states might try to derail the candidacy of a Republican president on dubious pretenses.
J.H. in Boston, MA, asks: Supposing the Supreme Court declines to reinstate Donald Trump's primary ballot access, and he retains 70% support among the primary electorate (or whatever polls have him at? Maybe higher?), and supposing also that everyone else drops out in favor of a single other non-Trump candidate, who then sweeps Maine and Colorado, how many delegates would that candidate need to close the gap? How many more states removing his primary ballot access would it take to jeopardize his clinching of the nomination, assuming his support holds at current levels?
(V) & (Z) answer: It will require half the voting delegates + 1 to claim the Republican nomination.
If some other Republican claims Maine and Colorado, that would be a total of 57 delegates. They would still be a long, long way from the promised land.
The absolute minimum number of states Trump would need in order to claim the nomination is 16: California, Texas, Florida, New York, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Georgia, Indiana, Tennessee, Michigan, Missouri, Alabama, South Carolina and New Jersey.
If we assume that Trump gets tossed off the ballot in blue and purple states, he would need 23: Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Georgia, Indiana, Tennessee, Missouri, Alabama, South Carolina, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Iowa, Utah, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, Idaho, Montana, West Virginia and Alaska.
M.B. in Cleveland Heights, OH, asks: Anyone who is paying attention knows that we are going to be flooded with AI-generated fake content in this election cycle. We just recently learned of a recording of Donald Trump and Ronna Romney McDaniel trying to persuade Michigan election officials not to certify the 2020 election. What evidence is there that this recording is legitimate, and not a carefully constructed fake?
(V) & (Z) answer: There are three good pieces of evidence. First, the Detroit News (which broke the story) talked to two people who were familiar with the recording, one who heard it live and one who heard it afterward, and they both confirmed its veracity.
Second, the timestamp on the recording is 9:55 p.m. on Nov, 17, 2020. Monica Palmer (one of the two targets of the phone call) acknowledged that she heard from Trump and McDaniel at that time, and her phone records (subpoenaed by the 1/6 Committee) confirm that she got two calls from McDaniel that night, one at 9:53 p.m. and one at 10:04 p.m.
Third, nobody who was part of the call has denied its authenticity. The response of the Trump camp, communicated through spokesperson Steven Cheung, was that Trump's actions: "were taken in furtherance of his duty as president of the United States to faithfully take care of the laws and ensure election integrity, including investigating the rigged and stolen 2020 presidential election." In other words, "Yeah, it's real, but it's not illegal."
J.L. in Mountain View, CA, asks: In your item on Nikki Haley's Civil War gaffe, you posted a link to the Old Slave Mart Museum in Charleston. I took a look and found this claim on their website curious: "In 1856 a new City Ordinance prohibited the practice of public sales, which resulted in the opening of Ryan's Auction Mart and a number of other sales rooms, yards or marts along State, Queen and Chalmers Streets."
What exactly was being prohibited and why? The idea that Charleston was placing restrictions on selling people in 1856 seems to go against my mental model, according to which, in the run up to the Civil War, slavery was becoming more entrenched in the south. On the other hand, if the "prohibition" resulted in the creation of a bunch of auction houses and sales rooms, it doesn't sound like much was really being prohibited.(V) & (Z) answer: By the late 1850s, the South was involved in, and largely losing, a national debate about slavery. One dimension of that debate was the morality/inhumanity of the institution. Meanwhile, Charleston, as a major port, was a cosmopolitan town that welcomed visitors from all over. Many of those visitors saw the open-air slave markets, were horrified, and took that home with them, whether to Europe or to Northern states or elsewhere. It's worth noting that Abraham Lincoln was famously turned against the institution of slavery after witnessing an open-air slave market (albeit in the 1830s in New Orleans, and not in the 1850s in Charleston).
Anyhow, in order to eliminate this particular black eye, Charleston forced the slave markets indoors, where they would only be seen by people who were explicitly seeking them out.
M.N. in San Jose, CA, asks: There has been lots of ink (pixels?) spilt over Nikki Haley's botched Civil War answer. Certainly slavery was a major part of prompting the Civil War. But a lot of folks are saying that slavery was the sole cause of the Civil War. That seems a bit simplistic to me as major political upheavals are rarely so simply defined. What is your take on the cause (or causes) of the Civil War?
(V) & (Z) answer: There is an old saying among Civil War historians: "People who don't know much about the Civil War think it was about slavery. People who know some about the Civil War think it was about something else. People who know a lot about the Civil War think it was about slavery."
It is true that the Civil War was prompted by many issues—tariff rates, the fate of the newly acquired territories, and federal vs. state power most important among them. However, the Southern position on these issues was invariably rooted in that section's desire to protect the slave system, which was foundational not only to their economic system but also to their social and political systems. Absent slavery, there would have been no secession, and there would have been no Civil War.
J.S. in Durham, NC, asks: As a woman of a certain age, I remember The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour with great fondness. My parents, being bleeding heart liberals, also loved them.
I am curious, though... I have always heard that Richard Nixon pulled his weight to get the show canceled due to their parodying him and his policies. I noticed that you did not mention this, which makes me wonder if it is true. Can you enlighten me?(V) & (Z) answer: It's complicated. Back then, the federal government was more aggressive about policing the content on broadcast television, using the FEC's power to levy fines/suspend licenses as leverage.
Meanwhile, when Richard Nixon took office in 1969, he sent several notes to CBS complaining about the content of the program. And he was already well known as someone willing to use and abuse any powers at his disposal. So, the Smothers brothers were canceled in April 1969, about 9 weeks after Nixon was sworn in.
Put simply, it is not quite correct to say that Nixon forced the cancellation of the show. It is correct, however, to say that the network's anticipation of what Nixon might (and probably would) do was the final straw that convinced CBS it wasn't worth it to keep the show on the air anymore.
B.D. in St. Agatha, ON, Canada, asks: My background is not political science or history or law, so I can not see how all of this can play out. What is SCOTUS most likely to do? How would that affect the court cases? How will the court cases affect the election? Should Biden stay in the race? Basically, will Trump get in again? As I try to put my fears into words, I feel there are too many variables for you, even with all your staff and patented crystal balls, to predict this future. So I will have to be content to just take it as it comes, and appreciate your insights as those come.
But most critically, will the Dodgers, with Shohei Ohtani and Yoshinobu Yamamoto, manage to win the World Series?(V) & (Z) answer: We think you have the right of it. There are so many variables this cycle, most of them absolutely unprecedented, that nobody can know how it all turns out. Instead of a crystal ball, it's more like a Magic 8 Ball: "Reply hazy, try again;" "Ask again later;" "Cannot predict now."
As to the Dodgers, they have a lot of unknowns, too. Will Yamamoto's Japanese dominance translate to American baseball? Will Ohtani stay healthy? How much longer will the 34-year-old Freddie Freeman be a star? Who's going to pitch on the days Yamamoto isn't pitching? And even if things go well, the modern-day baseball playoffs are such a crapshoot. The Atlanta Braves were far and away the best team of the 1990s, and yet they only won one World Series (and with one fewer round of playoffs back then). We think that's a pretty good projection for the Dodgers, actually: They'll get one WS out of the Ohtani-Yamamoto-Betts-Freeman core.
B.C. in Walpole, ME, asks: Is Nikki Haley the expert on foreign policy that the talking heads on TV seem to think she is? For less than a calendar year, she was U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. It has been my understanding that the ambassador's role is to be the mouthpiece for the White House in New York, nothing more or less. The ambassador doesn't make policy. Did she have any input to policy-making? Did the Trump White House have real policies? Did she travel to other countries in that role? Did she serve on U.N. committees? Did Haley have any foreign policy background, experience, or expertise prior to that year as ambassador? Since that year? The talking head seem to think that she has tremendous depth and experience that the other candidates lack.
(V) & (Z) answer: You're right that her experience is actually pretty limited. She did do some traveling, and she did do some committee work, but just a year is still just a year. She can't hold a candle to, say, Hillary Clinton (Secretary of State, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, First Lady) or Joe Biden (decades on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; VP), but just a year's foreign policy "experience" is enough to leave the other Republican presidential candidates in the dust—including, arguably, Donald Trump. So, she's treated as "the expert," even though that's only true in a relative sense.
D.J.M. in Salmon Arm, BC, Canada, asks: Do you think that Rep. Lauren Boebert's (R-CO) move to a new district is just Republicans behind the scenes convincing the not-too-bright lady to relocate so they can ditch her in the primary and win both districts?
(V) & (Z) answer: We suspect the Republicans brought the possibility to her attention, and told her it was her best chance. However, we don't think she was forced, since it really is to her benefit to make the jump.
P.F. in Fairbanks, AK, asks: Could the never-gonna-win-the-nomination candidates actually just be sticking around the primaries so they can collect delegates to be traded away at the convention?
(V) & (Z) answer: We don't see how that would make much sense. Their delegates would only have value if Donald Trump can't get the majority he needs to be nominated. And if the delegates are not needed (which they almost certainly won't be), then the candidate's presumption in having stayed in the race for however long will anger Trump and cause him to treat them as persona non grata. No cabinet posting, no ambassadorships, nothing.
A.G. in Scranton, PA, asks: Recently, I wrote you about my growing feeling of euphoria, common to all the politically addicted and wonkishly afflicted, that President Biden, not wanting to go down in history as the next confused and tired Paul von Hindenburg (who handed the reins of power to Adolf Hitler), is setting up the drama and excitement of a brokered convention to reinvigorate a Democratic Party's voters who are stuck in the doldrums and general malaise brought on by unrealistic expectations of him and his abilities as president.
A brokered convention is something most voters have never witnessed, is (if the 1964 classic The Best Man is any indicator) highly dramatic and entertaining, and may well bring forth some dark horse candidate that might well satisfy the many, widely varied, and highly fractured groups that make up our coalition.
Though I am somewhat less than convinced now that the above is true and believe that, despite President Biden being an excellent president (and one who will have my vote), he is embittered by the low expectations people have always had of him, planning on running, probably losing, and potentially going down as the president second only to President Buchanan in ineptitude.
I was wondering what you thought of the possibility of the president setting up a brokered convention?(V) & (Z) answer: We think it is very, very low. Joe Biden has achieved the pinnacle of his profession, something that many aspire to but few achieve. It's none too easy to toss that aside.
That said, he's also a party man, and we think that if he really and truly believed that the Democrats would stand a better chance with [Candidate X], he'd step aside. But he'd really and truly have to believe it, and the evidence isn't there for the existence of a white knight who could come riding to the rescue.
We suppose it is very slightly possible that Biden does something along the lines of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940, and opens up the possibility of allowing the convention to choose whomever they want (including Biden), so as to demonstrate that he really is the party's best and favorite candidate.
S.M. in New York City, NY, asks: Fairly frequently, I see Hillary Clinton giving an interview on various TV shows discussing current world/U.S. events. I never ever see Bill Clinton on TV discussing current world/US events—why is that?
(V) & (Z) answer: We would guess that there are two reasons. First, Hillary Clinton was a major national figure in recent memory, and would be known to pretty much anyone over the age of 15. Bill Clinton exited the national stage nearly 25 years ago, meaning he's only known to people who are roughly 40 or older. Second, Bill's sexual misdeeds were tolerated in his era, but are much more problematic after #MeToo. So we suspect he's been canceled, at least in part, on that basis.
P.L. in Denver, CO, asks: What would happen if the Democrats had their convention, nominated Joe Biden, and then he died before the general election? How would a new candidate be selected? Same question for the GOP.
(V) & (Z) answer: It depends on when Biden or Trump died. If they did so in July or August or maybe September, both parties have rules that allow for an emergency meeting and the selection of a new candidate. On the other hand, if they died in late September or October, it would be too late to put new candidates on the ballot. And so, members of the dead candidate's political party would be told to vote for the dead man. If the dead candidate won, then the Electoral College would choose that person as president and their (living) running mate as vice president. On January 20, when the VP was sworn in (which always happens first, before the president), that person would immediately be elevated to the presidency.
J.S. in Houston, TX, asks: You wrote: "In short, democracy in America is deeply flawed and there are many things that could be fixed, some easy and some not. The easy ones should be done quickly and a start should be made on the difficult ones."
I was wondering what you think are the top 2-3 things that are relatively easy and will have the most impact.(V) & (Z) answer: We are going to pick things that could be done by Congress, as opposed to requiring a constitutional amendment (which is a far higher bar to clear).
Anyhow, #1 is getting rid of, or weakening, the filibuster. It gives too much power to the minority, and makes it too hard for the majority to implement their political program. If a party has bad policy ideas, let the voters make that decision, as opposed to a handful of recalcitrant senators.
Moving on, #2 is implementing ranked choice voting. This makes it much harder for extremist candidates to get elected to Congress. In the last 25 years, we've seen plenty of evidence of the harm extremists can do.
And #3 is eliminating gerrymandering. Create a federal board that draws district maps using computer software. Or create several regional boards. Or require states to create redistricting commissions along the lines of the ones used in California and Colorado.
R.K. in Indianapolis, IN, asks: What if, during the Attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States' three carriers were in port instead of out to sea on maneuvers? Would their sinking have changed the trajectory or outcome of the Pacific Theater? What about if the dry dock, fuel centers, and other support infrastructure were crippled as well, instead of left untouched? Did the Japanese military actually have any chance of accomplishing their goal of crippling the U.S. Navy ahead of the war in the Pacific Theater?
(V) & (Z) answer: Well, as to the carriers, note that the U.S. had eight of them at the start of the war, albeit only three based at Pearl Harbor. It was also policy not to have all carriers in port at the same time. And finally, the U.S., unlike the Japanese, had the ability to produce additional carriers (more than 30 of them over the course of the war). So, at most, the Japanese might have sunk 25% of America's carriers (2 of 8), which would have been bad, but not devastating.
If the Japanese had destroyed the dry docks and other infrastructure, that would have been much, much worse, in part because it would have taken a lot of time to repair that infrastructure, and in part because several ships were salvaged by towing them into the dry docks—those ships would otherwise have been lost.
Still, the Japanese were stretched pretty much to their limits by the time of Pearl Harbor, and most estimates say that even a 100% effective attack would have slowed the U.S. down by 6 months. It's possible that the Japanese might have taken Midway in that scenario, but it's also possible the U.S. would have done whatever possible to defend that position, even if in a weakened state. We are inclined to the latter view.
Add it up, and a more effective attack on Pearl Harbor probably extends the Pacific War a bit—3 to 6 months—but probably not much more than that.
K.L. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: You wrote: "Most of the United States' wars since World War II have ended with a ceasefire, and not a surrender."
Can you elaborate? When and to whom did the U.S. surrender?(V) & (Z) answer: The U.S. has never surrendered.
The Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War ended with ceasefires.
The Persian Gulf War ended with the Iraqis surrendering to the U.S.
J.M. in Silver Spring, MD, asks: I am a fan of the works of Harry Turtledove, who writes "Alternative History" fiction. I feel like he does a good job presenting the personalities of prominent historical figures. I am curious what the resident historian thinks of Turtledove in general and in his World War books and The Guns of the South in particular.
(V) & (Z) answer: There are two different types of alternative history. In the first type, the author changes one significant detail of the past, and then tries to envision how things would have played out. In other words, the books describes events that MIGHT have happened, if things had unfolded just a little differently. Our first answer above, about Pearl Harbor, is largely in this vein.
Turtledove produced the second type of alternative history, wherein historically impossible events are introduced into the narrative. In The Guns of the South, for example, for those who have not read it, a bunch of white South Africans decide the best way to save apartheid is to travel back in time and arm the Confederate army with AK-47s. (Note that Turtledove wrote the book long before anyone ever heard of Elon Musk).
In any event, (Z) tends to prefer the first type of alternate history over the second (and for those who agree, consider picking up a copy of What If?: The World's Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been). That said, for those who like the second type, which is really a form of sci-fi, nobody's better than Turtledove.
F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: Who are the 10 most influential Latinos in U.S. history, and how did they influence the U.S.?
(V) & (Z) answer: Note that for purposes of this question, we are not going to include Spaniards unless they became longtime/permanent residents of Spain's New World territories. And with that said, here's our list:
- Desi Arnaz: Representation matters, and he was the first Latino to become a star on the then-new medium of television. He also reinvented the medium behind the scenes.
- Roberto Clemente: One of the greatest Latino athletes, and certainly the most worthy of being a role model, such that Major League Baseball's annual citizenship award is named in his honor. How many young people, Latino and otherwise, took inspiration from him during his playing days (1955-72)?
- Sylvia Rivera: Forced to leave home at 10 because her gender identity did not match her birth certificate, she became one of the most important early leaders of the gay and transgender rights movements.
- Sylvia Mendez: Her 1947 court case, Mendez v. Westminster, made it illegal for California schools to segregate Latino students from white, and laid the groundwork for Brown v. Board of Education 7 years later.
- Dennis Chávez: He wasn't the first Latino U.S. Senator (that was Octaviano A. Larrazolo, R-NM, who served 1928-29). However, he was the first to have a substantive career in the upper chamber, serving 1935-62. He fought for New Deal programs, government-provided childcare, and Native American rights, and was responsible for the legislation that created the Fair Employment Practices Commission.
- Sonia Sotomayor: The first Latino or Latina to serve on the Supreme Court. (We're not counting Benjamin Cardozo, who was of Portuguese descent.)
- David Farragut: You wouldn't guess that the Civil War's most important naval officer was Latino, but his father's birth name was Jordi Farragut Mesquida.
- Junípero Serra: He played a key role in the transformation of California from an inhospitable wilderness to an economic powerhouse. In so doing, he also (largely unwittingly) facilitated the rape and/or death of tens of thousands of Native Californians.
- Dolores Huerta: Cesar Chavez's right-hand woman, she was the strategic thinker, while he was the "boots on the ground." ¡Sí se puede! is hers, for example.
- Cesar Chavez: Perhaps the greatest labor organizer in U.S. history, he fought for migrant farm workers... and usually won.
Did we miss anyone?
D.S.A. in Parish, NY, asks: While tracking the location of U.S. aircraft carriers—Reagan, Ford, Truman and so on—I wondered if state or federal convictions preclude the future possibility of a USS Donald Trump aircraft carrier (The Big Orange)?
(V) & (Z) answer: The Navy is largely free to name ships as it sees fit, but tends to make sure the choices are appropriate. All of the presidents who have been honored with their names on an aircraft carrier were either veterans, wartime presidents, or both. There is no USS Bill Clinton or USS Herbert Hoover or USS Calvin Coolidge, nor is there likely to be.
Certainly, well ahead of Trump in line are Navy veterans Lyndon Johnson (The Big Johnson) and Richard Nixon (The Big Dick).
Here is the question we put before readers last week:
A.W. in Chicago, IL, asks: I've got a toe (maybe even a whole foot) in the world of competitive trivia. I've been doing Learned League for a few years now; there's also a new league called Par.Live that's proving to be fun, and I was recently able to take a second swipe at trivia's brass ring on Jeopardy! Anyway, I've been wondering how much overlap there is between that world and Electoral-Vote.com's readership. I suspect those of us drawn to your site are a generally curious bunch who can retain and recall bits of information in the way that's useful in trivia, but would I find any of them on LL or in those other places?
And here some of the answers we got in response:
L.B. in Cardiff, Wales, UK: I've played in Learned League (LL) too, although not for a few years. I try to take part in a pub quiz at my local gay pub every week, and took part in a few quizzes when I was traveling around the U.S. in October, calling myself "The Rest Of My Team Are In Wales," which inevitably became "The Rest Of My Team Are In Wales, ft. The Bartender."
I was also on University Challenge a few years ago (we lost, although Paxman called us "competent") and I'm trying to arrange a team to apply for Only Connect, which is filmed a half-hour walk from my flat.
W.H. in San Jose, CA: Just in case nobody else pipes up, I'll come out and say that I've been in the Jeopardy! contestant's pool for a few years but have not gotten "the call." Some 30 years ago I was a contestant on an episode of Win Ben Stein's Money, and for a couple of series I was a writer for the trivia-based game show Only Connect. However, unlike many of my friends, I'm not active in Learned League; I have too many other interests to dedicate more time to competitive trivia.
M.R. in New Brighton, MN: In response to the question about playing trivia games, I would like to recommend jetpunk.com. They offer trivia quizzes on all topics—I'm partial to geography but I think (Z) would enjoy the movie-related quizzes. And, yes, they even have a few quizzes on the subject of the Electoral College.
J.D. in Los Angeles, CA: Wanted to let A.W. in Chicago know that as far as Learned League goes, they can count on at least one other fellow LLama among Electoral-Vote.com's readers!
E-V is probably my best source of politics related history, news, and trivia, and has absolutely helped me bail my bar trivia team out of some tough questions because I remembered reading about it on the site. I would even go so far to say that I count politics as one of my stronger categories because of what I read on E-V.
As for Jeopardy!, the Wednesday night bar trivia I frequent has a reputation as being both fiendishly difficult and regularly attended by some of the luminaries of the trivia world including several Jeopardy! GOATs, a gaggle of 1-5 time winners, not to mention that among the various A and B rundlers at the quiz, we've got Patrick Friel who LLamas will recognize as the current Learned League champion two years running. I bring this up because as a trivia nerd who sometimes plays quizmaster for these people, I have more than once written questions using some interesting fact I read on E-V in the hopes that I'll be able to stump them while teaching everyone something interesting at the same time.
In fact, I'll be hosting the quiz once again this week and if anyone is able to make it to O'Briens Pub in Santa Monica on January 3rd at 8:00 PM (or its Twitch stream if they cannot) then there is a pretty good chance I will ask something a regular E-V reader will know if they have been reading (Z) and (V)'s posts as regularly as I do.
J.W. in Holland, MI: I am a fellow Llama (the self-referential moniker of Learned League members) and have been since 2015. It would not surprise me to learn that there is an appreciable overlap between LL and E-V, given that both communities foster an intellectually curious environment and do so in a respectful and inclusive manner. I have always been drawn to trivia contests and the desire to learn new facts, long before I became aware of Learned League or began reading Electoral-Vote.com all the way back in 2004. Both websites scratch that itch for me. Another way I derive satisfaction from my participation in both of those ecosystems (in a schadenfreude type of way) is the warm, fuzzy feeling that comes from knowing that my correct question percentage is MUCH better than LL member Mick Mulvaney.
M.J. in Oakdale, MN: Another fellow "LLama" (as some us Learned League players call ourselves). The Facebook page "LL: The Illamanati" would be another place for A.W. in Chicago to reach out for Electoral-Vote.com crossovers!
M.S. in Gig Harbor, WA: My wife and I are huge trivia nerds. But only one of us is a former Jeopardy! contestant. And the other is the one that reads Electoral-Vote.com religiously.
S.S. in Koloa, HI: I care greatly about the state of the world, and our country, and how each can be made better, so, of course, I read Electoral-Vote.com every day. But I couldn't care less about trivia and game shows, and do not bother with them. My brother, on the other hand, is obsessed with everything that happens that supports his belief that every institution that exercises any type of power is populated by total idiots or malevolent villains. He wouldn't miss an episode of Jeopardy!, but doesn't read E-V. Different strokes for different folks.
R.D.T. in Fresno, CA: I won $50,400 on Jeopardy! in 1987-88 (the last $1,000 in the Tournament of Champions), a set of camping equipment on Win Ben Stein's Money in 1998 (and was assured—on the air—by sidekick Jimmy Kimmel that I was "a strange little man"), and $125,000 on Who Wants To Be a Millionaire? in 2000 (with Regis Philbin).
M.S. in Brooklyn, NY: My guess is that there is overlap between trivia fans and Electoral-Vote.com. I am not a member of LL or Par.Live. In fact, I never heard of those before today. However, I used to play online trivia, and, this past June, I was a contestant on Jeopardy! I like to say I got the bronze ;-) I think that E-V certainly helped with history and current events questions. It did not help me push the buzzer faster than the two amazing guys I played against. What wasn't shown is that the three of us hugged each other at the end of the game. Trivia fans bond quickly!
E.H. in Los Altos, CA: Yep, I'm a trivia buff who is a longtime reader of Electoral-Vote.com (since 2004). I've been in Learned League for over 11 years, play in OQL/ICC online trivia, and am active on Par.Live. Par actually has a whole category devoted to politics and civics and reading this site has helped me with keeping up with all the current senators and governors.
L.R.H. in Oakland, CA: I am Learned League-adjacent, which is to say, two or three friends have suggested that I might enjoy it and two have offered to sponsor me. I am at a point in my life where it's becoming practical for me to join, so, probably in 2024.
I will mention that I had great fun a few years ago test-driving a Learned League quiz in an area where one of the friends and I share a particular area of expertise.
J.D. in St. Paul, MN: (Z) may speak for himself, but there's no doubt he'd be a fearsome trivia opponent. Now I'll speak for myself and a sizable share of the site's readership: Yes, I follow politics closely and enjoy history and cleverness, and I'm capable of retaining lots of obscure information, but I'm awful at trivia (and even at crossword puzzles) because my pop culture knowledge is nil. I'm not above pop culture. I just never developed the interest when young. If you don't do it then, it's too late.
In recent years (Z) has been leading us, and leading (V) too, I assume, ever deeper into the pop culture thickets. I don't let it bother me. I just skip over those bits, even when they get rather large. I believe that (V) and (Z) have banked such reservoirs of good will with their readership that most of us would tolerate pages of raw computer code every week if (V) decided to offer that up. In short, at year's end, thank you!
Here is the question for next week:
S.P. in Harrisburg, PA, asks: You ran a question several weeks ago about what is it about Trump that his supporters like. I would like to ask the opposite: What is it about Biden that his supporters like?
Submit your answers here!